lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:39:32 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Dylan Hung <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Joel Stanley <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        "" <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Po-Yu Chuang <>,
        linux-aspeed <>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <>,
        BMC-SW <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ftgmac100: Fix missing TX-poll issue

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:41 AM Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 14:11 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > At the moment, the only chips that need the heavy barrier are
> > > omap4 and mstar_v7, and early l2 cache controllers (not the one
> > > on Cortex-A7) have another synchronization callback that IIRC
> > > is used for streaming mappings.
>  .../...
> > > Obviously, adding one of these for ast2600 would slow down every
> > > mb() and writel() a lot, but if it is a chip-wide problem rather than
> > > one isolated to the network device, it would be the correct solution,
> > > provided that a correct code sequence can be found.
> I'm surprised that problem doesn't already exist on the ast2400 and
> 2500 and I thus worry about the performance impact of such a workaround
> applied generally to every MMIO writes....
> But we did kill mmiowb so ... ;-)

The real cost would have to be measured of course, and it depends a
lot on how it's done. The read-from-uncached-memory as in the 1/4
patch here seems fairly expensive, the mstarv7_mb() method (spinning
on an mmio read) seems worse, but the omap4 method (a posted write
to a mmio address in the memory controller to enforce a barrier between
the two ports) doesn't seem that bad and would correspond to what
the chip should be doing in the first place.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists